NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTEBAN GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ, AKA No. 18-72897
Esteban Rodriguez-Garcia,
Agency No. A205-714-045
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Esteban Garcia-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question of
whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference
is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review
factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. at 1241. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095,
1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Garcia-Rodriguez did not establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,
1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group,
“[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who
share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3)
socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26
I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053,
1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding that individuals returning to Mexico from the
United States who are believed to be wealthy does not constitute a particular social
group). Substantial evidence supports the determination that Garcia-Rodriguez
otherwise failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a
protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an
applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
2 18-72897
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
Garcia-Rodriguez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Garcia-Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Rodriguez’s request
to remand and terminate proceedings where his contention that the immigration
court lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v.
Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from a
notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).
We reject as unsupported by the record Garcia-Rodriguez’s other
assignments of error.
As stated in the court’s March 13, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-72897
Esteban Garcia-Rodriguez v. William Barr
Combined Opinion